Evolution is crap! Squawk! (Page 30) BelgianStrider: kittybobo34 in "Creationism is a mental illness" : "Ghost,, good point, we should have a sign directing them to the Ark, Perhaps out back with a pit and alligators..... We could call it Darwinism in action." @ Enkidu2017: can you get an idea how she can be against homo creationensis, perhaps even to homo stalkiensis - we should not exclude that - ? I warned you, some people with decent historical background might like expedite justice. For you info: the origins is Egyptian and with the Nile crocodile ; see how adaptation to the environment can happen, as evolution predicted (Edited by BelgianStrider)  Enkidu2017: i try not to make assumptions about others ...... but to be fair some of assumptions crack me up  MJ59:
One for the droolers  The Lessons of Tiktaalik Posted on 10-August-2009 | 39 Comments THE last time we mentioned Tiktaalik, the fossil of a transitional species midway between finned fish and four-footed land animals, was in this post: Creationism and Science, where we were pointing out the foolishness of the creationist claim that the past is scientifically unknowable because it can’t be observed or re-created in the lab. We’re going to repeat some of what we said then, but we’re also going to elaborate a bit, because the discovery of Tiktaalik illustrates — and rebuts — many of the fallacies of creationism. In fact, we think the story of Tiktaalik should be told every time you find yourself in a conversation with a creationist. When creationists address the subject of transitional fossils, they are in full denial mode. This is because of their dogmatic insistence that one species can’t evolve into another. They acknowledge what they call “micro-evolution” (observed changes due to mutation and selection, as with Darwin’s finches) but they insist that what they call “macro-evolution” (the result of cumulative changes over time) is impossible. Therefore they flatly assert that there are no transitional fossils, despite the abundant evidence to the contrary. See: list of transitional fossils. They also claim that a transitional creature is impossible, because — and here they regurgitate comic-book creationism — such a creature would have one fin and one leg, or one lung and one gill, or half an eyeball, or some other ridiculous and impossible set of features. No creature like the creationists’ caricatures ever existed, and no biologist thinks otherwise. Gross genetic deformities sometimes occur, but are rarely viable. What we now recognize as transitional creatures were fully-functional and fully-formed members of a breeding population of similar creatures, entirely capable of surviving in their environment. Except for lines that suffered extinction, each ancient species was a link in the long chain of life between its ancestors and its descendants. In one sense, every creature that produces offspring is transitional, but in a brief time-span there are no visible evolutionary effects. For example, your father is obviously transitional between you and your grandfather, but you’re all clearly the same species. However, if we find a fossil from the middle of a long evolutionary chain that stretches over millions of generations, changes that have occurred over that time span become evident. The fossil will have some characteristics that were common to its early ancestors but which are absent in its modern descendants. It will possess other characteristics that its ancestors didn’t have, but which are common to its distant descendants. That’s the value of the fossil record — with enough specimens, each is like a single frame in time-lapse photography, or a page in a flip-book. But still, how can we explain (or try to explain) to a creationist that the scientific approach to learning about the past has actual scientific value — the results of which are far more “true” (i.e., objectively verifiable) than some account that rests upon mere assumptions? There’s probably little to be gained from a philosophical lecture about the relative merits of natural versus supernatural explanations, because creationists are programmed to reject the former and prefer the latter. However, there is yet another method of explaining the merit of a scientific explanation of the past — cross-confirmation by independent lines of evidence. A splendid instructional example is the discovery of Tiktaalik. Interestingly, Tiktaalik has its own website. One of the principal scientists involved in the discovery was Neil Shubin, author of Your Inner Fish (Amazon listing). That fossil wasn’t an accidental discovery. It was found by predicting that a transition occurred approximately 360 to 380 million years ago, before which, according to the fossil record, there were no four-legged vertebrates living on land. Relying on geology, an appropriately aged and conveniently exposed rock stratum was located in the Canadian Arctic that had once been an ancient shoreline. That’s where the search commenced. Bear in mind that the fossil search was based on two independent theories about the past — first, that the fossil record tells a reliable history of the development of life on earth, so the scientists knew when to search; and second, that geologists have developed reliable methods for determining the age of various rock strata, so the scientists knew where to search. The fossil hunt was a test of both theories. This article in New Scientist, First fossil of fish that crawled onto land discovered, is from April of 2006, the time of the discovery. It says: Palaeontologists didn’t previously have a decent fossil representing the intermediate between finned fish and four-footed land animals, or tetrapods. The new animal has been named Tiktaalik after suggestions from Inuit elders in the northern Canadian territory of Nunavut, where the fossil was found. […] “We describe this as a ‘fishopod’: part fish, part tetrapod,” says Neil Shubin, a palaeontologist at the University of Chicago, and a member of the team that discovered Tiktaalik. […] Tetrapods evolved from lobe-finned fishes between 380 and 365 million years ago. […] Hoping to understand this key period better, Shubin and his colleague Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, together with Farish Jenkins of Harvard, began searching for fossil-bearing sediments of the right age. After five years of digging on Ellesmere Island, in the far north of Nunavut, they hit pay dirt … There’s much more information in that article, and also at the Tiktaalik website to which we linked above. At that site, click on the “Discovery” tab. It’s worth the visit. An additional point must be made: Creationists often claim that statements about the age of the earth and of fossils involve circular reasoning, because fossils — presumed to be old — are then used to claim that the rock strata in which they are found must also be old — which is all hogwash because the earth was created only 6,000 years ago. However, as the discovery of Tiktaalik so strikingly demonstrates, the fossil find isn’t what caused the rock stratum to be arbitrarily declared of the proper age, merely to suit the theory of evolution. The geological information was separately developed by geologists, using their own methods, and that information was relied upon as a guide to the proper location for the fossil hunt. [[[[[---- The point to be emphasized is this: Testing a specific prediction based on both evolution and geology, Shubin and his colleagues searched for the fossil of a transitional creature that — according to the theory of evolution — must have once existed in a place and time like the one geologists said they were searching. Their discovery, after five years of effort, spectacularly confirmed the validity of both geology and evolution theory. That is why the past is scientifically knowable, even if it can’t be observed or re-created in the lab. ----]]]]] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Will the creationist to whom you explain this be convinced? Alas, probably not. But at least you’ll know you gave it a good try (Edited by MJ59) MJ59: The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design Note: In case this document is ever disclosed in a courtroom, remember: this is a statement of scientific principles. We don’t use the word “creationism.” The operative term is Intelligent Design, or ID. Similarly, we don’t use the word “miracle.” The operative expression is “product of ID.” In applying these principles while speaking to the public, be sure to emphasize that what we do here is science, not theology. This is vital for litigation purposes. 1. The Law of Evidence: Everything is Designed; therefore everything is evidence of ID. No evidence supports evolution. 2. The Law of Conservation of Arguments: Discredited arguments are never discarded, they can always be recycled. 3. The Law of Reproducible Results: Anything found in nature was Designed, unless it can be reproduced in the lab. Corollary: Anything intentionally done in a lab is not natural; it’s a purposeful result. Therefore, all lab results are evidence of Intelligent Design. 4. The Law of Completeness: Anything which has not yet been found or explained will never never be found or explained. Gaps and mysteries are evidence of ID. 5. The Law of Complexity, Improbability, and Inexplicably: That which is complicated or improbable and has not been explained, cannot exist naturally. 6. The Law of Impossibility: Complex and improbable things, being naturally impossible, must be the product of ID. 7. The Law of Persistence of Design: Once something has been declared a product of ID, no natural explanation is acceptable. If one of proffered, it is evidence only of the fact that the naturalists are desperate. 8. The Law of Supernatural Superiority: Whenever two explanations of a phenomenon are presented, one natural and one supernatural, the latter is always better. Naturalistic bias must be avoided. 9. The Principle of Life: Life can’t arise naturally, and yet it exists. Therefore life is the product of ID. 10. The Principle of Universal Design: The universe is made for life, which is highly improbable; therefore the universe is the product of ID. MJ59: The Theory of Abominable Befuddlement Posted on 26-June-2009 | 5 Comments YOUR Curmudgeon has experienced an early morning flash of insight. This essay will be brief; and you should save it. A printout of these words, dated today, will undoubtedly be an historical memento of immense value. We’ve devoted considerable efforts to documenting the functioning — if that’s the word — of the creationist brain, and in response to our examples of creationist wisdom, many of you remark that they can’t be real, they must be spoofs, there’s no way people can be that messed up, etc. Yet the avalanche of evidence continues, with no hint of an end, so the existence of creationist thinking must be accepted as a fact. But a question emerges: How can a brain function in a creationist manner? Indeed, how can a creationist brain even exist? Surely, the defects that produce such a malfunctioning organ should have been filtered out of the gene pool long ago. We can’t avoid the issue: The continued existence of creationists among us can be cited as evidence against natural selection. Therefore, we must boldly acknowledge the Paradox of Creationism: Creationism exists; and if evolution can’t account for it, then what does? That’s when the answer hit us: We’ll use the methodology of the creationists to solve this problem! As the creationists — or as some of them prefer to be known, intelligent design (ID) theorists — are always reminding us: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Surely you see it now. If we follow their own thinking, the solution to the paradox is obvious: The brain of a creationist is so scrambled that it cannot be the result of natural processes. An unnatural agency must be responsible. The Theory of Abominable Befuddlement (AB) holds that certain features of the creationist brain are best explained by an Abominable Befuddler, and not by evolution. It follows as a self-evident corollary that ID is caused by AB. But as scientific thinkers, how can we have confidence in the theory of AB? Again, our inspiration comes from the same creationist source to which we linked above, which tells us: Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Using this creationist-approved method of investigation, a befuddlement theorist studies the output of creationists, and thus is able to determine whether it is the rational product of an evolved brain, or an example of befuddlement. We could continue, but there’s no need at this point. You see where we’re going with this. And you doubtless agree. Verily, this is a glorious day! History reveals that it is a rare occasion when a genuine scientific breakthrough is made. Rarer still to have such an event occur within one’s lifetime. And rarest of all is to actually be the one who makes the breakthrough. BelgianStrider: A possible theory that confirms my point of view. Viruses are transient "organisms" between live and non-live. Though, abiogenesis is impossible and contradicts the second law of thermodynamics (or is it the law of entropy???). Thus: evolution is crap Squawk!!!  kittybobo34: You have a point about viruses, I suppose you could refer to them as smart chemicals. They fit into the gray area between life and non life. BelgianStrider: It is a fact, mostly it is a matter of decent observation and logic or vice versa, i.e Quantum Mechanics: first logic and then (may be) observation) ... It is not for nothing that D. Attenborough (the lucky guy) is quite convinced concerning evolution... (Edited by BelgianStrider) MJ59: Debate Tricks Used by Creationists Posted on 2-April-2021 | 18 Comments It occurred to us that although we have compiled a load of information about creationism, such as The Ten Laws of Creationism, we’ve never posted a collection of creationist debate techniques. We’ve posted about their tricks — they would call them “techniques” — one at a time, whenever we encounter them. One example is the Creationist Scientific Method: 1. Select a conclusion which you hope is true. 2. Find one piece of evidence that possibly might fit. 3. Ignore all other evidence. 4. That’s it. And we’ve mentioned other techniques. For example, there’s ol’ Hambo’s method of discrediting everything science has learned about the past merely by asking: Were you there? The result, he believes, “proves” that scripture is the only source of truth about the past. Just before April Fool’s day we discovered a new one that was developed by the Discoveroids. In Why Did Creation Take So Long? we wrote about their new trick — new to us, anyway — of dismissing facts that are inconvenient and defending their warped version of reality merely by asking: “Why not?” Yes, it sounds bizarre, but the Discoveroids think it’s brilliant. And of course there’s the Gish gallop, defined by Wikipedia as a “technique in which a debater attempts to overwhelm an opponent by excessive number of arguments, without regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.” We know there are more, but at the moment we can’t think of them. Therefore, we’re asking you, dear reader, to add to the list for us. There must be other creationist techniques. And remember, tricks like this aren’t limited to creationists. Politicians can use them too — and they do. So help us add to the list. It’ll be a useful resource for those ghastly occasions when you find yourself in the company of a creationist — or a politician with whom you totally disagree. Let’s hear from you! Addendum: Let’s not forget quote mining, described in Wikipedia’s article on Quoting out of context. Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved. Find an anomaly in any piece of evidence for evolution, preferably one ignored by a prominent supporter of evolution. Pretend that the anomaly undermines the use of that evidence. Ignore the fact that the resolution of the anomaly leaves the relevant area of evolution science stronger than it was before. Just as Newton’s celestial mechanics were strengthened, not weakened, when the anomalous orbit of Uranus ledtothe prediction,and thendiscovery, of Neptune, so genetic trees are embellished, not diminished, by the discovery of horizontal gene transfer and introgression. For a fine example of a creationist using this kind of argument (and of a prominent advocate of evolution having clumsily left himself wide open to it), see https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/posts/obsolete-dawkinsian-evidence-for-evolution Quote mining. Negative advertising. Lack of alternative. Retired Prof | 2-April-2021 at 9:11 pm | Funny. Back in my day the “why not?” question was antithetical to the creationist position. There are two answers to the question “Why?” Puritanicl answer: “Because.” Existentialist answer: “Why not?” Such-and-such is unlike anything which we have any experience of being designed. Therefore it must be designed. Experienced the ‘Side-shift’ method while debating creos. Whenever I produced sufficient evidence to have them question their stance on some point, they ignored the conclusion and moved sideways with a totally irrelevant new topic.’ What about So-and-So’ they deflected. Correct their viewpoints and the side-shift reared its ugly head. Again. Talk about trying to build on quicksand. It reminds me of the ancient joke about the Philosphy 101 exam. The only question on the paper was: “Why?” Marking was very simple. A C would be given for “Why not?”, a B for “Because!” and an A for “Why indeed?” Any other answer would be a fail, except the Dean’s prize was once won for “What a stupid question”. The standard creationist ploy — and which is now bearing new fruit in leftist “woke” circles — is to establish powerfully emotive, rhetorical terms and conditions from the outset, as if they were axiomatic, to which the opponent is then pressured to justify themself. For Ham and his cronies, it’s assertions such as “the Bible is the Word of God” — therefore cannot be argued with; or: everybody, without fail, is a “sinner” — so must seek salvation through Christ alone. For today’s left liberals, it’s “white privilege” and its corollary, racism. This is merely a variation on Original Sin, but one couched in more secular terms. There is no way to fight such coercive rhetoric, other than simply not to agree to such terms in the first place. But the tactic, whether religious or political, is bullying acquiescence to the charge of automatic guilt. We think of such tactics as inherently totalitarian, in light of the historical stage on which they took place last century, but the impulse has probably always been there, available to the idealogues of all times and societies. : It’s a strange thing to see opposites join hands. The religious right has no time for science, but the woke left can be just as bad. The first derives from straight-up authoritarianism, the second from the dismissal of objectivity intrinsic to post-modernism, but there they are, working together, both pulling in the same direction. Only for the nonce, of course. It’s some reassurance that they have this unspoken alliance, for it can only last as long as neither makes significant progress. But the moment either achieves genuine state power, watch out. We live in depressing times. But satire — of the sort we indulge in here at this site — will always have its place. What bothers me is the self-appointed cultural commissars who will try to dictate the boundaries of the permissible. Apologies for misspelling ideologue. Pick your choice: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/search : “This is merely a variation on Original Sin” It’s worse. White privilege and racism, unlike Original Sin, used to have meaning and be scientifically testable. “the woke left can be just as bad” As “woke” rapidly has become a meaningless term you can safely omit it. Also I’d like to point out that “left” and “authoritarian” are not mutually exclusive at all. “What bothers me is the self-appointed cultural commissars who will try to dictate the boundaries of the permissible.” Same here. As I’m now for a change criticizing the left (remember, my favourite hobby is pissing off everybody, so including those who think I’m their political ally) I’d like to point out that dictating the boundaries of the permissible is contraproductive – it’s focusing on the symptoms iso tackling the causes. And because analogies usually are not perfect I’ll add that this will turn into symbol politics, that don’t change anything at all in the end. It’s not the first time leftists make this mistake. Very good,. How did I forget quote mining? I’ll add that to the post. Presenting outputs as inputs. Presenting confirmation as circular reasoning. Redefining science so that historical sciences don’t really count. Strawmanning opponents (Though lots of other people do that, even here). Flat out misrepresentation. Regarding criticism as censorship. Either-or-ism. Inconsistency in definitions. Condemning natural explanations as materialistic and therefore atheist. And of course the other things that people have mentioned here already. What have I missed out? The issue of so-called “historical science” as inferior to “observational science” is just one example of a misreprentation of the ways of science as it proves valuable. Other examples are reference to the Baconian “scientific method” and Karl Popper’s “falsifiability”. , And of course, relatedly,confusing repeatability of observation (eg dating the K/Pg boundary layer) with repeatability of process observed (in this case, asteroid impact) Like slick carnies, creationists who profess their authoritative sounding spiels to their gullible audiences rattle off their gibberish so fast giving little time for analysis by the listener. The listener becomes overwhelmed and can easily get lost in the torrent of mumble jumble presented, succumbing to a conclusion that “well, it sounds plausible” even if they question something. How about using contradictions, grasping both horns of a dilemma as if they were both true. For example, claiming that a natural process cannot produce order; while saying that hydrological sorting (or other process not involving a miracle) is responsible for the pattern of the fossil record. A comprehensive list… but it fails at the first hurdle. Item #1 is “never debate creationists”. It can only provide them with air-time, a fresh audience for their views, and enhance their own identity and reputation. At the same time, you are on a hiding to nothing, it does nothing for your own reputation (except possibly tarnish it), and generate more heat than light. C`mon, Ted, you want to take all the fun out of life? MJ59: Neanderthals & Creationists — the Same Species? Posted on 3-April-2021 | 12 Comments Sometimes, a little bit of evidence can go a long way. A good example of this is presented to us today by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. His new post is titled Neanderthal Toothpick Discovery Reminds Us God’s Word is True. It’s at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), Hambo’s creationist ministry. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]: And the discoveries continue! What do I mean? Well, it seems that every few weeks there’s another story in the news about a new discovery highlighting just how “like us” Neanderthals were. They wore jewelry and makeup, made musical instruments and tools, caught and ate fresh shellfish, could hear like us, and this newest discovery adds yet another thing to the list: they used toothpicks and practiced oral hygiene. Ooooooooooooh! They used toothpicks! How unexpected! Hambo says: The picture of who Neanderthals were has totally changed since I went to school and was taught they were primitive brutes! What’s he saying, and why? Is he really telling us that there’s no difference between (a) him and his followers, and (b) Neanderthals? Let’s find out. He tells us: Scientists studying two teeth found in a cave determined that the owner of the teeth fashioned and used a toothpick often enough to “leave a clear trace.” … It’s yet another reminder that Neanderthals were human, just like us. They weren’t unintelligent brutes — a popular perception that lingers in the minds of many and often in museums. All the evidence points to their humanity. And the evidence just keeps coming! Ooook, oooook! Or should that be Ugh, ugh! Anyway, Hambo continues: You see, when the bones of Neanderthals were first discovered, they were assumed to be our evolutionary relatives, but not fully human. [Gasp — evolution!] But those who started with God’s Word knew the truth — [Ooooooooooooh! The Truth™!] these were the remains of humans and therefore they were people made in the image of God, descended from Adam and Eve. And, eventually, the evidence confirmed exactly what we’d expect starting with God’s Word. If Adam and Eve produced Neanderthal offspring, they must have been two extremely ugly people. Anyway, now we come to the end — and it’s really powerful: It’s a good reminder that the evidence, when properly interpreted [Hee hee!], will always confirm God’s Word. So next time you see something that appears to contradict the history in God’s Word, remember Neanderthals and the avalanche of evidence that did not confirm evolutionary expectations but confirms the Bible’s history. Man’s fallible ideas change, but God’s Word never changes. In all likelihood, the people standing in line every day to visit ol’ Hambo’s Ark probably look like Neanderthals. so it’s not difficult to see how he would come to believe as he does. Sorry, Hambo, it doesn’t work that way. It’s only your followers who have that primitive look. A lot of them probably have a load of Neanderthal ancestry, so actually, you’re not entirely wrong. I guess they are unaware of the fact that chimpanzees brush their teeth with twigs too. Anyway, we’re outta here. Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved. Enkidu2017: Why don't you provide some sound evidence about how you really "feel" about it ? ................................................. BelgianStrider: Concerning mr ham and C° versus Mr. Neanderthal: Well, it seems that mr ham (hesp in Dutch, jambon in French) and C° really need to go back some 200 years ago in the published literature and journalism. May be they might realise that it was their kind of idiot indoctrinated religious zealots that claimed Mr. Neanderthal had to be a rude apelike brute with no intelligence, neither soul, as it clearly contradicts their super dogma that only "man" can have a soul. Again a clear fallacy emanating from a scientific moron that even can't understand that no humans ever lived with Dino's (except the Flintstones of course). Damn, how can they lie like that and handle, without blushing, clearly against their "faith". mr hesp is not the only like that; some of those zealots are convinced xenophobic homophobe racists and even are not able understand that with their claims they stupidly utter, they give clear evidences of their viewpoints contradicting, without any doubt, Jesus' teachings (cfr. mr zeffur). (Edited by BelgianStrider) Enkidu2017: I find it stranger that nobody talks about the journey the cave Woman has taken ..... keeping in step with the changing times of course ............ BelgianStrider: enkindu .. concerning the "cave women": It was not that long ago that in the christian zealous religions women were considered "inferior" to men. A "status" that women still undergo within those idiot zealots brandishing the other "book" with the same base; notably, that bronze aged shepherd's book - and even amongst those reading (literally) that bronze aged book are convinced about the "inferiority" of women due to some strange story with an "apple"... Also note that "man" was quoted in " " in my reflection. Up to you to make up what that might mean. Hoping with that, you have some idea about my opinion concerning your question. (Edited by BelgianStrider) | Science Chat Room Similar Conversations |